There is a difference between " Freedom " and total anarchy. And if that's what you're selling no wonder not many are buying.

"Freedom is a condition in which a person's ownership rights in his own body and his legitimate material property are not invaded, are not aggressed against." - Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto

"Freedom is a condition in which a person's ownership rights in his own body and his legitimate material property are not invaded, are not aggressed against." - Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto

And as we've seen freedom has to be protected by laws and social ideals. You see we're still a work in progress and half savage. I don't like that any more than you do but it is what it is. Maybe in a few thousand years.......

Ever see an old classic movie called " Forbidden Planet "? Even back then in 1956 they recognized that : " We're all part monster inside so we have laws and religion "

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

And we're going to have to ditch the religion before we have any chance at being able to ditch the laws.

Well you got the idea. People can only be trusted just so far to do the right thing. Religion was only a way of presenting morals in a light people of the time could absorb. In time different people twisted it as a means to an end and we have some of the ones we see today. There are some definite good things the bible teaches : Don't kill, don't steal etc. It's just that men have taken that and twisted it into something else. But that's what happens when people are left to their own too much. You just can't rust them to do the right thing always.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

I'm saying it sure sounds like you can't see the value of philosophy in art. Oh what would the people who read Ayn Rand say?

It was a perfect example of why we can't just let people go to anarchy. The movie may be old and a bit cheesy in places but it's a classic and it's message is unmistakable. In the movie the Krell were these advanced beings who ceased to exist in just one night. They had conquered war and all the ills that we have. They were so advanced they made a machine that could project solid matter by mere thought to anywhere on the planet. For any purpose. But they forgot one thing. They evolved from the mindless primitive ( just like us ) and that remained in their subconscious. So all the secret hate and fear that lurks there ( monsters form the ID ) governed these physical creations as well. So in one night they killed themselves because who could have stopped them?
People basically mean well they just are governed partially by their hormones, genes, basic body chemistry, and about two hundred thousand years of evolutionary development. We're a work in progress. Maybe people can be left with little or no laws or government someday but that's a long way in the future.

You know MJ some of the greatest truths in the world are simple. But I guess you just don't get that. Oh well..........

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

I'm asking you to explain - in your view - how that is better than what you perceive to be anarchy.

Sigh. Ideals are what we aspire to ( not the same as an" ideal world ". They don't exist automatically from the get go. It still sounds like you're not reading the thread very closely.

And I don't perceive anything about what he meant. It's there in black and white for you to read. Get real.

It's better because without it a man could want you, your wife, and all you own. If powerful enough he could just come into your house and take those things and there would be no policeman to stop him. No law would protect you and police coverage if it did exist would be worse than it is now because not everybody would pay for it. They'd rather spend the money on something else. So we have taxes to pay for it to make sure that doesn't happen. And even in that kind of society there's corruption because people will be people but at least there's something tp protect you from that just happening. It's better than just the wild west MJ's advocating.

Not if you can't see what I'm getting at you're just being contrarian because you want to help MJ. Come on Jazzy.

Either that or try reading all what we've wrote up until now.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

It's always entertaining and amusing sparring with him. Not challenging in any real way...but definitely entertaining.

Given the typical statist mentality that anything less that the current amount of government would be anarchy, I can see how he thought I was advocating for anarchy.

What's especially humorous is this. Personal income tax accounts for about 49% of the revenue of the federal government. In 2010 the total federal government revenue was about $1.9T (stated in 2005 dollars). To completely eliminate personal income tax would cut that in half and take us back to about what it was in 1978. While that would be huge step backwards...no reasonable person would argue that it was a time of anarchy (no government at all).

It's always entertaining and amusing sparring with him. Not challenging in any real way...but definitely entertaining.

Given the typical statist mentality that anything less that the current amount of government would be anarchy, I can see how he thought I was advocating for anarchy.

What's especially humorous is this. Personal income tax accounts for about 49% of the revenue of the federal government. In 2010 the total federal government revenue was about $1.9T (stated in 2005 dollars). To completely eliminate personal income tax would cut that in half and take us back to about what it was in 1978. While that would be huge step backwards...no reasonable person would argue that it was a time of anarchy (no government at all).

The hoot would be what would happen if we did that. Now I've completely gutted your premise MJ. Jazzy can't see that you're advocating anarchy even though I quoted you doing so.

Now you can Fein the " aren't you funny jimmac and I'm so superior " thing in a lame attempt to discredit me but I have better things to do with my evening than play with two bad boys who can't even admit when they've been shown how wrong they are.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Well you can just refuse admit you're wrong ( or your own delusions can keep you from seeing that ) no matter what. That won't make you right or keep you from appearing wrong to others ( voters as well as we've already seen ). Oh! But that's right! You don't care about the majority. Good. Keep that up! We'll being reading about the Libertarian Party in the political dustbins of history someday. And MJ sinking to spelling is telling. When you stoop to that it means you really don't have a counter argument.

Quote:

If I do...I'll at least spell feign correctly.

You can spell correctly all you like. For example can you tell me what's wrong with this sentence ?

Quote:

Given the typical statist mentality that anything less that the current amount of government would be anarchy, I can see how he thought I was advocating for anarchy.

It really doesn't have any bearing on the subject matter at hand.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Well you can just refuse admit you're wrong ( or your own delusions can keep you from seeing that ) no matter what. That won't make you right or keep you from appearing wrong to others ( voters as well as we've already seen ).

there's a perfectly good explanation. Jazzguru, Jimmac and e# all disappeared at about the same time and came back at the same time. They're all really just one person suffering from multiple personality disorder!

Given the typical statist mentality that anything less that the current amount of government would be anarchy.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970

What's especially humorous is this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Personal income tax accounts for about 49% of the revenue of the federal government. In 2010 the total federal government revenue was about $1.9T (stated in 2005 dollars). To completely eliminate personal income tax would cut that in half and take us back to about what it was in 1978. While that would be huge step backwards...no reasonable person would argue that it was a time of anarchy (no government at all).

Right. So you want to make government illegal, burn down the White House and execute firemen. Got it.

[/MJ1970]

BRILLIANT! You can just pretend to make a contribution by making supercilious comments that hint at some greater knowledge and don't actually add a damn thing to any exchange of ideas!

The hoot would be what would happen if we did that. Now I've completely gutted your premise MJ. Jazzy can't see that you're advocating anarchy even though I quoted you doing so.

Now you can Fein the " aren't you funny jimmac and I'm so superior " thing in a lame attempt to discredit me but I have better things to do with my evening than play with two bad boys who can't even admit when they've been shown how wrong they are.

He didn't OFFER a premise. You stated he was advocating anarchy, which clearly was not. You were simply asked the difference between freedom and anarchy, and why one is better than the other.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

It's always entertaining and amusing sparring with him. Not challenging in any real way...but definitely entertaining.

Given the typical statist mentality that anything less that the current amount of government would be anarchy, I can see how he thought I was advocating for anarchy.

Yes, he's quite entertaining. As you said, it's not challenging, but entertaining. If you ask him to clarify something, he flips out and tells you you're "dodging the question." The best is when you use a term or a phrase, and he throws back out at you a few posts later, pretending it was his. I'll be arguing with him, and I'll post "that's rhetorical nonsense." A few posts or even pages later, he'll post "SDW, that's just retorical [sic] nonense."

I have more of his greatest hits, if you'd like.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Yes, he's quite entertaining. As you said, it's not challenging, but entertaining. If you ask him to clarify something, he flips out and tells you you're "dodging the question." The best is when you use a term or a phrase, and he throws back out at you a few posts later, pretending it was his. I'll be arguing with him, and I'll post "that's rhetorical nonsense." A few posts or even pages later, he'll post "SDW, that's just retorical [sic] nonense."

I have more of his greatest hits, if you'd like.

Remember I have many of yours as well! Shall we take a stroll down memory lane together?

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

there's a perfectly good explanation. Jazzguru, Jimmac and e# all disappeared at about the same time and came back at the same time. They're all really just one person suffering from multiple personality disorder!

there's a perfectly good explanation. Jazzguru, Jimmac and e# all disappeared at about the same time and came back at the same time. They're all really just one person suffering from multiple personality disorder!

That would be a serious split!

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi